Britain's silent, scandalous epidemic

[A Dub]

Re: Britain's silent, scandalous epidemic

Agreed. Think of all the very poor countries with no welfare system to game (e.g. in Africa, Asia, S America) and observe that many very poor citizens have more kids than they can support. There's some other reason(s) why very poor people reproduce so much, I don't believe its a calculated decision to obtain more welfare.

[lektrode]

Re: Britain's silent, scandalous epidemic

...don't believe its a calculated decision to obtain more welfare.

perhaps not 'calculated' - but when one considers the full package of incentives to have more babies in THIS country (The US) one reaches the inescapable conclusion that what the gov has done for 'families' parallels what its done for (to) real estate.

the real problem is that not only do we have a growing ignorant/uneducated/unmotivated underclass milking the system, but a 'new wave' of immigrants flowing across the borders thats also gaming the system - esp with the rule that says their offspring are automatically citizens, entitled to all the bene's of being an american?

and - not incidently - they tend to vote along certain party lines...

[lektrode]

Re: Britain's silent, scandalous epidemic

...The idea is not that ONE MUST EXPOSE the child to EVERYTHING. The idea is to expose it to as much as possible and hope that something in this range of experiences attracts it to keep going in that direction. Then the magic has a better hope of happening in the future.

Leaving the child in front of a TV is as good as feeding it poison.

+1

the were 2 things that were bestowed upon me as a kid - the first was a train set for xmas when i was 12.

the other was being 'forced' into the sport of snow skiing - and no, we werent rich by any stretch - nor poor either - the ole man just happened to get introduced to this 'new' thing after returning from WW2, when it was still relatively cheap (before the kennedy's made it popular and 'destination re$orts' created condos and retail 'opportunities' to make the actual sliding down the hill an 'accessory' to the base village) but the lessons in self confidence stuck with me and altho i admittedly havent 'reached my full potential' (skibum that i am) i wouldnt trade the experiences for anything, as it motivates me to this day (to go to work to make enuf to buy lift tickets... ;)

[World Traveler]

Re: Britain's silent, scandalous epidemic

What do we do about corporations like GE, Exxon, Accenture, and many more, that milk the system?

By using our roads, court systems, educated citizen/employees, etc., all funded by our tax dollars.

And who then exploit tax loopholes and overseas affiliates/ phony headquarters to pay NO U.S. federal taxes, i.e. not pay for all the free goodies that they get.

[lektrode]

Re: Britain's silent, scandalous epidemic

What do we do about corporations like GE, Exxon, Accenture, and many more, that milk the system?

By using our roads, court systems, educated citizen/employees, etc., all funded by our tax dollars.

And who then exploit tax loopholes and overseas affiliates/ phony headquarters to pay NO U.S. federal taxes, i.e. not pay for all the free goodies that they get.

simple, 4 word solution:

TERM LIMITS FOR CONGRESS - NOW!

ending the lifetime gravy train the political class has created for themselves will fix the problem within 2 or 3 election cycles

furthermore - i would call for an immediate national referendum to let the voters decide the issue (since the beltway crowd aint about to do it to themselves)

and if the voters say no?
well... then WE DESERVE EVERYTHING the bought-off, corrupt to the core political class does to us.

and i dont wanna hear any apologist BS about why it cant or shouldnt be done (but hey, give it yer best shot, i'm game ;)

[A Dub]

Re: Britain's silent, scandalous epidemic

I agree with you. Offer poor people handouts and they will gladly take them and vote for those who promise to continue/expand them. Those starving in 3rd world countries would all claim welfare if any were offered and if they have the chance to move to a developed nation to enjoy more generous public services, they often do. We have our share of this in the USA. That said, I don't believe "welfare" is what causes poor people to have more kids in the first place - they seem to do that universally even without welfare programs to incentivize them.

[lakedaemonian]

Re: Britain's silent, scandalous epidemic

Agreed. Think of all the very poor countries with no welfare system to game (e.g. in Africa, Asia, S America) and observe that many very poor citizens have more kids than they can support. There's some other reason(s) why very poor people reproduce so much, I don't believe its a calculated decision to obtain more welfare.

From my experience in the 3rd world I kinda look at families having large numbers of children AS a personal welfare system.

If you have 6-7 kids, maybe you lose 1-2 in childbirth or infancy due to poor access to basic healthcare, poor public health/hygiene, easily preventable conditions in the west, etc, maybe 2-3 of the surviving children are girls who will generally join their husband's family/clan/wantok, leaving 2-3 adult male children who can assist in supporting the parents when they become elderly/infirm/sick.

Having only 1-2 children could be a personal financial disaster by the time you reach your 40's in a country where life expectancy is in the 50's.

Just a thought.

To me....competitive/comparative birth rates are an underappreciated data point......for example....the relative low birth rates of Israel(including folks making Aliyah) compared to the far higher birth rate of Palestinians in the territories is a looming demographic/political/diplomatic disaster for Israel that can't be easily countered. But now I'm going off topic.

I'm pretty sure the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation have invested a lot in developing world birth control.

[lakedaemonian]

Re: Britain's silent, scandalous epidemic

lakedaemonian - What I was alluding to with regard to that 0-5 remark is how extremely important this period is in a human beings development. I used to think that if enough time was spent one could make up for things not done at an earlier age. It can be done but the full potential of the brain will not be involved. Once the the "wiring" of the brain is established at that time it is close to impossible to undo it. The pruning/strengthening of synaptic connections is nearly final, though this process continues at a slower rate to really end around the age of 20 yrs. There after it goes slowly in revers.

If a child is to have a hope to be an Olympian it needs to start very very early in any given discipline. Exceptions do happen but on average this is the golden formula of success. Success in all areas is directly related to what was happening with the child in those critical years. I am convinced that parents armed with this knowledge could do so much more to help their children to at least have a better hope to do the best possible in the future. Not having this knowledge is a HUGE disadvantage.

Hence the effort should be to make sure the child is well fed and exposed to activities that allow it to develop its brain and potential talent to the max. The potential IS THERE but it needs to be accessed and developed.

One parent when I told him this told me that "I can't teach the child all the sports and all the subjects. We have no time or money to do this.". Well he was missing the point. The idea is not that ONE MUST EXPOSE the child to EVERYTHING. The idea is to expose it to as much as possible and hope that something in this range of experiences attracts it to keep going in that direction. Then the magic has a better hope of happening in the future.

Leaving the child in front of a TV is as good as feeding it poison. Leaving it to play with toys/blocks etc. it the way to go.

Another area that opened my eyes was the program "Super Nanny". Heck, it made me realize how much better parents can do and HOW LITTLE they know about children and how to raise them. For me it was a Great Awakening.

I definitely agree.....especially on the first 5 years, which our two have just finished.

We're also big fans of the Super Nanny......but admittedly don't watch anymore.....but we still take onboard the lessons we learned from it.

We've put a lot of time and effort into developing our children's potential as much as we can....without OVER doing the breadth of activities.....if in doubt...our default setting is Legos and books.

But I have to admit our emphasis on our kids is not so much rigorous academics...as it is a rigorous effort to inculcate the highest level possible of interpersonal/people skills in our children.

Our thinking is that if our children aren't smart enough to find the cure for cancer themselves.....then maybe we can help them develop the higher order people skills needed to recruit, motivate, manage, lead, support, and/or fund those who actually do.

It's been a big shift for us.....after seeing some close family, friends, and peers with incredible raw potential fail due to a lack of people/interpersonal skills.

We reckon the world is about sales....selling yourself.....and I think that's a layer directly associated with the 0-5 child development.....but I think it also runs on top of it as well.

[Master Shake]

Re: Britain's silent, scandalous epidemic

Most of them are responsible parents. Large numbers of them have jobs. This is a real problem and nasty comments don't help.

How do you know it's a real problem? Because a lefty Brit paper says so?

I think the core problem is bad or non-existent parenting, not bad social policies.

[Starving Steve]

Re: Britain's silent, scandalous epidemic

When your utility bills are bigger than your pay-cheques when you and your spouse are working, and when a food-cart loaded with groceries and well-shopped for nutrition and price, now costs either side of $200 at Costco; when you can't afford to buy a home, nor the rent on an apartment if you don't buy a home, and when you can't afford medical insurance nor afford to go without it; when you can't afford gas to drive.... on and on and on.... then one has to start to question and maybe even revolt against the pro-inflation economics being taught now in universities, also the ridiculous and arrogant green movement, also the corrupt political system in America and Canada, also the city planners that created high-density planning and drove housing costs up to the Moon, also the monetary authorities and central banks that helped print their way into this inflationary mess.... The system is in shambles.

If prices slowly fell (de-flated) everyone would be able to live. The problems would dis-appear; wouldn't they?

The de-flation means that currency is not now being printed, and that currency is not going to be printed. No-one is going to be rescued from their inflation hedges and their (high risk) inflation investments.... There will be less growth in the economy, but the economy would be placed onto a stable and real foundation. People would invest because they would receive a certain and stable return. Production, manufacturing, innovation, affordable energy and competitive exports would make the economy grow---- albeit slowly, but grow never-the-less in real terms.

Somehow, the universities have done a real dis-service to the world in recent years: Keynsian economics, green energy and green economics, anti-growth policies, high-density city planning--- all of it has led the Western World into this Great Recession.

[shiny!]

Re: Britain's silent, scandalous epidemic

Children going hungry is one of the saddest things in this world. It's bad enough when the cause is some natural disaster that no one could prevent. But when it happens simply for lack of money, it makes me despair for the human race.

On another note, when people start discussing "people" who have children they cannot support, "people" abusing welfare, they mean "women", i.e. "welfare mothers". I'm not accusing anyone here of racism, but oftentimes the image of a welfare mother is that of a black woman in a ghetto. I don't have time to find the study, but some years ago I read that the majority of mothers on welfare are not black women in the "projects", but white women who have been abandoned by their husbands.

It takes TWO to make a baby. If we're going to be pointing fingers at mothers on welfare, let's also point them at irresponsible, absentee fathers while we're at it. The majority of single mothers struggle every day, doing the best they can for their children. Single mothers get blamed for taking welfare so they can stay at home to raise their children. Mothers also get blamed for working and leaving their children in daycare. A mother can be the best mother in the world, but she can't be a father, too, AND work while also staying home. C'mon, let's be fair here! Children also need fathers- responsible, involved fathers.

I want a law that says that men who have children they are not supporting, even one child on welfare, those men get mandatory vasectomies courtesy of the taxpayer.

[Master Shake]

Re: Britain's silent, scandalous epidemic

I want a law that says that men who have children they are not supporting, even one child on welfare, those men get mandatory vasectomies courtesy of the taxpayer.

I'm down with that. And any female of child-bearing age gets mandatory Norplant or no public assistance money of any kind. Agreed?

[Starving Steve]

Re: Britain's silent, scandalous epidemic

Children going hungry is one of the saddest things in this world. It's bad enough when the cause is some natural disaster that no one could prevent. But when it happens simply for lack of money, it makes me despair for the human race.

On another note, when people start discussing "people" who have children they cannot support, "people" abusing welfare, they mean "women", i.e. "welfare mothers". I'm not accusing anyone here of racism, but oftentimes the image of a welfare mother is that of a black woman in a ghetto. I don't have time to find the study, but some years ago I read that the majority of mothers on welfare are not black women in the "projects", but white women who have been abandoned by their husbands.

It takes TWO to make a baby. If we're going to be pointing fingers at mothers on welfare, let's also point them at irresponsible, absentee fathers while we're at it. The majority of single mothers struggle every day, doing the best they can for their children. Single mothers get blamed for taking welfare so they can stay at home to raise their children. Mothers also get blamed for working and leaving their children in daycare. A mother can be the best mother in the world, but she can't be a father, too, AND work while also staying home. C'mon, let's be fair here! Children also need fathers- responsible, involved fathers.

I want a law that says that men who have children they are not supporting, even one child on welfare, those men get mandatory vasectomies courtesy of the taxpayer.

Being the slow-learner here, I would think the problem is this: Men don't want to get married for one reason: Women are experts at playing the divorce game. Women have turned marriage into a joke.

The divorce game: 1.) "I love you." 2.) Marry-up. 3.) Divorce even better. 4.) Place $ in gold or in bonds, and... 5.) Go to Step #1 again.

The divorce game works even better with children for the man to support, and the judge will always have sympathy for the woman with kids, etc.

Would you like me to write this in Spanish?

[lakedaemonian]

Re: Britain's silent, scandalous epidemic

Children going hungry is one of the saddest things in this world. It's bad enough when the cause is some natural disaster that no one could prevent. But when it happens simply for lack of money, it makes me despair for the human race.

On another note, when people start discussing "people" who have children they cannot support, "people" abusing welfare, they mean "women", i.e. "welfare mothers". I'm not accusing anyone here of racism, but oftentimes the image of a welfare mother is that of a black woman in a ghetto. I don't have time to find the study, but some years ago I read that the majority of mothers on welfare are not black women in the "projects", but white women who have been abandoned by their husbands.

It takes TWO to make a baby. If we're going to be pointing fingers at mothers on welfare, let's also point them at irresponsible, absentee fathers while we're at it. The majority of single mothers struggle every day, doing the best they can for their children. Single mothers get blamed for taking welfare so they can stay at home to raise their children. Mothers also get blamed for working and leaving their children in daycare. A mother can be the best mother in the world, but she can't be a father, too, AND work while also staying home. C'mon, let's be fair here! Children also need fathers- responsible, involved fathers.

I want a law that says that men who have children they are not supporting, even one child on welfare, those men get mandatory vasectomies courtesy of the taxpayer.

I'd be down with that as well.....I'd even stretch it a bit and offer say $1000 for irreversible vasectomies and $10,000 for irreversible tying of tubes.........but I reckon that would be deemed racist eugenics....even though you accurately mentioned single welfare dependant mothers are more often vanilla than chocolate.

My opinion on child support is pretty close to yours......you make it or break it, then you financially own it.

Where I get my back up is in far from equal property distribution when a relationship dissolves...it seems quite round peg square hole at times.

My wife and I are lucky to have a robust agreement that protects our kids first and fairly protects both of us if anything catastrophic were to happen or if we were to split.

I recall reading a story about a fella who was asked to provide his sperm to a lesbian couple for artificial insemination.....the couple dissolved and legally hooked him for support even though he was supposedly legally absolved of parental rights....he was still made financially responsible without the associated parental rights.....I assume the story to be true(and as best I can recall)....but didn't try to run it through Snopes to verify it's accuracy as it was a bit ago.

To me, I see the declining ability for two parent families to support themselves on a single income and the rise of single parent households requiring the additional overheads for running two households between the two parents as serious contributing factors to this problem.

While I don't think the answer is forcing unhappy couple to stay together.....accepting higher levels of domestic violence is not the answer......but surely the frictional costs of increased overheads from increased numbers of households today(with a higher divorce/seperation rate) compared with 40 years ago can't be good for the kids as a result of lower family cash flow for healthier lifestyle choices to support the additional household.

One of the most mixed feelings I've had lately was when approached by huge numbers of poor kids in Cambodia recently.....everyone of those kids(as well as pretty much everyone in the entire country) is hustling to stay afloat.

It was both incredibly sad but also quite encouraging in a way to see those kids hustling HARD.

The almost primal drive, and tangible hunger to achieve out of necessity was simply unlike anything I've seen in my travels to some poor places around the world. They weren't begging, they were trying to work/sell anything and everything...not looking for handouts.....just a chance to pitch you on their wares.

There was no sense or appearance of self-pity or complacency....they simply couldn't afford it. There is no one to fix their problems but themselves.

This is going to sound incredibly callous, but I'd like to see 10 kids from there given a mediocre opportunity here...and 10 kids here dropped in the deep end there.......I think it would be an incredibly enlightening opportunity for both groups. I could see those Cambodian kids absolutely cleaning up in school and work if they were able to be integrated...and I could see some western kids learning a new reference point/definition for a personal existential threat.

While I have considerable sympathy for those at the bottom of the pile in our world and find it very difficult to differentiate between those addicted to welfare with those just in a temporary rough patch(so I genuinely try not to judge)...I have incredible respect for folks in those other worlds who are scrambling to stay afloat.

I genuinely want my children to see it and in some way experience it......I have the utmost respect for folks doing it that hard......and not in a patronizing way...there is a tangible fire in their eyes that I think is lacking in big chunks and strata of our often quite complacent western societies that must change....we are soft and increasingly angry......and they are hard as nails and still smiling.

I was fortunate to have one of the army docs I was traveling and working with who was born in Equador and WAS one of those poor hungry street kids 30 years ago....it was really enlightening to hear his stories while seeing the potential stories in other young children swarming around us at times and the potential they represent just chomping at the bit for a shot at the brass ring.

It was a very enlightening experience....unlike any other I've had in the 3rd world.

I guess in short I sympathize with our poor......but I truly respect theirs.

[Shakespear]

Re: Britain's silent, scandalous epidemic

We reckon the world is about sales....selling yourself.....and I think that's a layer directly associated with the 0-5 child development.....but I think it also runs on top of it as well.

Yes, that is the BINGO moment, SALES. Consumers.

"Their" desire is NOT to limit the populations and help to set up a system geared making happy faces. "They" want to see fields and fields of consumers. "They" get "them" with extended retirement age, they get them with War on XXXX (drugs, terror, immigrants etc.), they get them in Prisons ( tax payer foots the bill to the Corp. running them), they get them with advertisement (I would outlaw it in TV) that they do NOT have enough, they get them with corporate food (degrading health and environment), finally when the sheep are worn out they get them at the pharmacy or the hospital.

That is my personal observation of how things evolved in the US since 1967 to this day.

I would add also "critical thinking" with a strong emphasis to know how to find information supportive of both sides of an issue. Debate clubs are things of the Past in most schools that I have come in contact of recent.

I know I am veering from the subject but since we are talking about the little tikes this might be of interest.

What makes Finland so hot?

Finland's stellar performance has drawn the attention of education and government officials around the world. These experts have uncovered many attributes of the Finnish educational system that are distinctive and contribute to the success of Finnish students. Some of these features are:

• The Finnish school system uses the same curriculum for all students (which may be one reason why Finnish scores varied so little from school to school).
• Students have light homework loads.
• Finnish schools do not have classes for gifted students.
• Finland uses very little standardized testing.
• Children do not start school until age 7.
• Finland has a comprehensive preschool program that emphasizes "self-reflection" and socializing, not academics.
• Grades are not given until high school, and even then, class rankings are not compiled.
• Teachers must have master's degrees.
• Becoming a teacher in Finland is highly competitive. Just 10% of Finnish college graduates are accepted into the teacher training program; as a result, teaching is a high-status profession. (Teacher salaries are similar to teacher salaries in the U.S., however.)
• Students are separated into academic and vocational tracks during the last three years of high school. About 50% go into each track.
• Diagnostic testing of students is used early and frequently. If a student is in need of extra help, intensive intervention is provided.
• Groups of teachers visit each others' classes to observe their colleagues at work. Teachers also get one afternoon per week for professional development.
• School funding is higher for the middle school years, the years when children are most in danger of dropping out.
• College is free in Finland.

http://www.greatschools.org/students...nts-compare.gs